• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tom Brady owes the IRS over 60 grand for winning Super Bowl.

CanadaJohn said:
I don't disagree with you, but in the US don't you have to pay tax on winnings in a lottery or at a casino, etc.? Why should winning a car or income from playing a game be any different. Here in Canada, if you win $10 million in a lottery, that's $10 million tax free you get and you pay tax only on any income you generate on the $10 million after you have it in your hands. Likewise, if you win a few $thousand at the race track or casino, you don't have to pay tax on your winnings before you get it and you don't have to declare it as income, because it's not "earned".

Tom Brady, making $millions for playing a fun sport, in a league making $billions should not be the poster child for taxation sob stories. Put up the couple who win $300 million in the Megaball lottery having to pay $150 million in tax before they get their hands on a cent of it.
Click to expand...

Why should the lottery be tax-free? Let's face it the lottery is only a moneymaking gimmick for the state anyway.

So a couple wins 300 million and has to settle for 150 million? Oh boo-hoo Hoo call the Waaaabulance.

Besides the vast majority of people who win the lottery end up broke in a couple years anyway. You could give them 150 million 300 million or billion the fact is people who play the lottery usually don't know how to manage their cash anyway and they end up losing it all
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Why should the lottery be tax-free? Let's face it the lottery is only a moneymaking gimmick for the state anyway.

So a couple wins 300 million and has to settle for 150 million? Oh boo-hoo Hoo call the Waaaabulance.

Besides the vast majority of people who win the lottery end up broke in a couple years anyway. You could give them 150 million 300 million or billion the fact is people who play the lottery usually don't know how to manage their cash anyway and they end up losing it all
Click to expand...

You may not realize it, but you answered your own question in your comments.

The lottery should be tax free because the government already skims off its profit (tax) from all the monies provided to buy the tickets. If the lottery pays out a top prize of $300 million, you can bet the governments involved have already skimmed off a good $billion as their cut before any prize is collected. And then they get to ding you again on the winnings?

And isn't it typical that a "progressive" would think that a citizen shouldn't get to keep their money because the government knows best how to spend it for them. Land of the free, my ass!!

Americans like to call Canada a "socialist" country but just who are the socialists in this scenario?
 
Unrepresented said:
The government can't serve you unless it has the resources to do so. Taxation is one means of acquiring those resources.
Click to expand...

Well, that's just a generic, basic statement.

Can they serve us without going into (putting us into) Trillions of dollars of debt? Of course they can, but they won't. Because they get support from those on the left, and even some that are kind of on the right, to spend, spend, spend.
 
CanadaJohn said:
You may not realize it, but you answered your own question in your comments.

The lottery should be tax free because the government already skims off its profit (tax) from all the monies provided to buy the tickets. If the lottery pays out a top prize of $300 million, you can bet the governments involved have already skimmed off a good $billion as their cut before any prize is collected. And then they get to ding you again on the winnings?

And isn't it typical that a "progressive" would think that a citizen shouldn't get to keep their money because the government knows best how to spend it for them. Land of the free, my ass!!

Americans like to call Canada a "socialist" country but just who are the socialists in this scenario?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is kind of stupid how they do it. They take in all the lottery money, then make a portion available for winnings, then take more from that portion that they made available from the winners. I guess they think it will attract to more players if the jackpot is $300M instead of $150M?
 
HonestJoe said:
I should point out that I don't have any especially strong feeling about high pay in (some) professional sports. I was really just turning around the OPs wording.

Nice theory but it's not how it actually works in the real world. The method by which the perceived value of American Football player is calculated is entirely differently to that for, say, a professional tennis player, vastly different again to us regular salaried workers and different again to a number of other fields.

Anyway, here we're talking about the Superbowl game pay which I believe is the same for all the players on the winning team, regardless of the scale or quality of their individual contributions (and they say Americans don't do Communism :) ). It's interesting that this article chose not to look at Brady's "normal" in-season wages.
Click to expand...

Players in the NFL and people of all walks of life earn what they negotiate. Some are better negotiators than others.
 
Anthony60 said:
Yes, it is kind of stupid how they do it. They take in all the lottery money, then make a portion available for winnings, then take more from that portion that they made available from the winners. I guess they think it will attract to more players if the jackpot is $300M instead of $150M?
Click to expand...

Absolutely - and it's a regressive tax because it disproportionately hits the poor and lower income people who think hitting it rich is their only hope.
 
upsideguy said:
Are you serious? He earned $97,000 for playing in the game and got a free truck, which was worth another 35-40K. Sorry you are outraged, but you pay tax on income in this country. When you have a big tax bill, it means you got paid a lot of money. We should all like seeing $60,000 due for taxes at the bottom of our tax return.

Its time to grow up (and lay off the political porn --- look at the headline, it was designed simply to get your blood pressure up, without ever having the pretense of actually educating you, as apparently it did not). Save your outrage for truly troubling things.
Click to expand...

97,000 plus 40,000 equals 137,000. The taxes are 60,000 which equals a take home by Brady of 77,000. So the government gets half basically. I don't consider that fair or reasonable. The Mafia takes less of a cut for their protection money rackets and provides better service.
 
sawdust said:
I don't feel sorry for Brady, and you're right, he makes millions playing a game. I understand the need for taxes but taking such a high percentage of earnings to pay for a bloated federal bureaucracy isn't something I can support.
Click to expand...
And yet whenever it comes time to announce cuts to said federal bureaucracy, people only support cuts to programs they don't like. Whatever. If you were sincere (and let's face it, you're not) you'd support across the board spending cuts.
 
CanadaJohn said:
And/or have higher valued skill sets.
Click to expand...

Everyone still has to negotiate the money they get. Perceived value is part of that negotiation. Perception and reality are as we all know not necessarily the same thing.
 
sawdust said:
Honestly Joe, it's exactly how it works in the real world fro quarterbacks to hamburger flippers. The more value you create for a business, the more you're worth and paid. TV contracts help establish salary caps for pro football teams so it's a good example of trickle down.
Click to expand...
The NFL is also a socialist organization.
 
PirateMk1 said:
97,000 plus 40,000 equals 137,000. The taxes are 60,000 which equals a take home by Brady of 77,000. So the government gets half basically. I don't consider that fair or reasonable. The Mafia takes less of a cut for their protection money rackets and provides better service.
Click to expand...

Considering that's the rate of tax on income in addition to the $millions he gets in salary, it's the going rate for gouging the top 1% in order to fund the needs of the collective - don't you listen to your President and leading Democrats? :)
 
Anthony60 said:
Well, that's just a generic, basic statement.

Can they serve us without going into (putting us into) Trillions of dollars of debt? Of course they can, but they won't. Because they get support from those on the left, and even some that are kind of on the right, to spend, spend, spend.
Click to expand...
One could make as much of a blanket statement about the right seeking to perpetually underfund government.
 
Unrepresented said:
They're all down in the poorer communities to prevent them from raiding the rich communities.
Click to expand...

No, they're down in the poor communities because they are robbing and killing each other.
 
Henrin said:
No, they're down in the poor communities because they are robbing and killing each other.
Click to expand...
The wealthy and powerful have devised government to discourage attacks on worthwhile targets and encourage attacks on more acceptable ones.
 
reinoe said:
And yet whenever it comes time to announce cuts to said federal bureaucracy, people only support cuts to programs they don't like. Whatever. If you were sincere (and let's face it, you're not) you'd support across the board spending cuts.
Click to expand...

How the heck do you know what I would cut?
 
reinoe said:
The NFL is also a socialist organization.
Click to expand...

In what way? Some municipalities have too much invested in stadiums but the government doesn't own any team the last time I heard.
 
PirateMk1 said:
97,000 plus 40,000 equals 137,000. The taxes are 60,000 which equals a take home by Brady of 77,000. So the government gets half basically. I don't consider that fair or reasonable. The Mafia takes less of a cut for their protection money rackets and provides better service.
Click to expand...

Its a tax on marginal earned income for someone in the highest tax bracket. Someone that simply makes $140K does not pay anywhere near that amount of tax. The tax was particularly compounded by the fact that Tom chose to give the car away creating a gift tax. On the other hand, because it was a gift, Malcolm Butler pays no tax on it. So, you can say that part of Brady's gift to Butler includes picking up the tax tab.

People that cry for Tom Brady have a misguided sense of priority. There are millions in america that do not know where there next meal is coming from; are without a job; have a medical condition that threatens to rob them of their lives and bills robbing them of everything they worked for; we have thousands in prisons that should not be there because we overprosecuted the case and they were too poor to defend themselves; others that live in a battered home that fear for there lives and well-being; others that are without a home and on the streets. If you want to cry, there is much to cry about. Tom Brady deserves NONE of your tears.
 
Last edited:
sawdust said:
In what way? Some municipalities have too much invested in stadiums but the government doesn't own any team the last time I heard.
Click to expand...

OK, maybe not socialist if you define it as government owned, but a collective. Almost all revenues are put into one big pot and doled out equally among the 32 teams, so the haves are required to redistribute to the have nots, and all teams have a more or less equal pot of money to spend on player salaries.

And for the record, the fact that municipalities subsidize stadiums of the richest sports league in the world, with teams owned by some of the richest men in the world, is one of the more telling examples of how the world works. Long live the American Aristocracy!!
 
Unrepresented said:
One could make as much of a blanket statement about the right seeking to perpetually underfund government.
Click to expand...

One could, but I didn't; you did. And that's still arguable, I could argue that the right seeks to properly fund government, not under fund it. You just basically said government needs money to run. Might as well say the sun comes up in the East. No one was disputing that. So what's the point?
 
Cephus said:
Why is it wrong? It's income. He owes taxes on income. So do people who win the lottery or any sweepstakes over a certain threshold. Tom Brady makes $31.3 million, plus another $7 million from endorsements and he's going to get even more off of his Superbowl victory. I think he can afford it.
Click to expand...

Said it before, the government needs taxes but the problem that I have is the rate at which everyone is taxed. Look at the truck that he gave to the other player. It cost him thirteen grand to give the truck away. The fact that he can afford it is beside the point. The concept is what I have issue with. In addition, I have an issue with the issue that the rich don't pay their fair share. The rich already carry most of the burden which I find unfair as well.
 
sawdust said:
Said it before, the government needs taxes but the problem that I have is the rate at which everyone is taxed. Look at the truck that he gave to the other player. It cost him thirteen grand to give the truck away. The fact that he can afford it is beside the point. The concept is what I have issue with. In addition, I have an issue with the issue that the rich don't pay their fair share. The rich already carry most of the burden which I find unfair as well.
Click to expand...

Then he doesn't have to accept the merchandise and he doesn't incur any taxes on it. It's not that hard to figure out.
 
Anthony60 said:
One could, but I didn't; you did. And that's still arguable, I could argue that the right seeks to properly fund government, not under fund it. You just basically said government needs money to run. Might as well say the sun comes up in the East. No one was disputing that. So what's the point?
Click to expand...
The argument I'm making is that both are subjective positions, and ultimately the bias of the observer will determine the narrative rather than objective facts.
 
Cephus said:
Then he doesn't have to accept the merchandise and he doesn't incur any taxes on it. It's not that hard to figure out.
Click to expand...

Apparently you aren't a math major. The truck is probably a fifty thousand dollar truck. I don't have an issue with the truck being taxed as a capital gain. I do have a problem with the tax which exceeds the gift tax limit, which last time I checked was eight grand. If the final recipient of the truck paid thirteen grand in tax and got a fifty thousand dollar truck in return, we wouldn't be talking about this. The tax code is phuqued.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom